622175

research-article2016
EROXXX10.1177/2332858415622175Grissom and ReddingDiscretion and Disproportionality

AERA Open
January-March 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1­–25
DOI: 10.1177/2332858415622175
© The Author(s) 2016. http://ero.sagepub.com

Discretion and Disproportionality: Explaining the Underrepresentation

of High-Achieving Students of Color in Gifted Programs

Jason A. Grissom
Christopher Redding
Vanderbilt University

Students of color are underrepresented in gifted programs relative to White students, but the reasons for this underrepresen-
tation are poorly understood. We investigate the predictors of gifted assignment using nationally representative, longitudinal
data on elementary students. We document that even among students with high standardized test scores, Black students are
less likely to be assigned to gifted services in both math and reading, a pattern that persists when controlling for other back-
ground factors, such as health and socioeconomic status, and characteristics of classrooms and schools. We then investigate
the role of teacher discretion, leveraging research from political science suggesting that clients of government services from
traditionally underrepresented groups benefit from diversity in the providers of those services, including teachers. Even after
conditioning on test scores and other factors, Black students indeed are referred to gifted programs, particularly in reading,
at significantly lower rates when taught by non-Black teachers, a concerning result given the relatively low incidence of
assignment to own-race teachers among Black students.

Keywords: gifted education, equity, teachers, race, school context

Substantial race disparities exist in student receipt of gifted
education services in American schools. Data from the Office
for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education
reveal that as of 2009, African American students constitute
16.7% of the student population but just 9.8% of students in
gifted programs. Similarly, Hispanic students constitute
22.3% of students but only 15.4% of students receiving gifted
services (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). These dis-
proportionalities have sparked concern among researchers
and the media not only because they represent potentially
unfair or inequitable treatment of minority students (Baker,
2013; Ford, 1998) but because studies have linked participa-
tion in gifted programs to positive future outcomes, including
increased academic performance (Bhatt, 2009; Card &
Giuliano, 2014; Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007;
Goldring, 1990; C. Kulik & Kulik, 1982; Rogers, 2007) and
improvements in such domains as motivation, self-efficacy,
engagement with learning, nonacademic self-concept, and
overall stress (e.g., C. Kulik & Kulik, 1982; J. Kulik & Kulik,
1984; Marsh, Chessor, Craven, & Roche, 1995; Rogers,
2007).1 Furthermore, disparities in gifted identification may
contribute to within-school segregation of students on the
basis of race and ethnicity, with consequences for both non-
White and White students (Darity & Jolla, 2009).
Scholars have attributed racial and ethnic disparities in
gifted program participation to a variety of factors. Generally
lower achievement among Black and Hispanic students, for
example, might contribute to underrepresentation in gifted
programs, particularly in systems with narrower, achieve-
ment-centered definitions of giftedness (Ford, 1998). Lower
social and financial capital can mean that racial- and ethnic-
minority families may have less access to information about
identification processes or to private psychologists or others
who can test them for giftedness outside the school
(Mickelson, 2003). Furthermore, Black students are less
likely to attend schools with gifted programs. Data from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort
(ECLS-K)—the data source for this study—show that 90%
of White, 93% of Hispanic, and 91% of Asian elementary
school students attend a school with a gifted program, com-
pared to only 83% of African American students. Within
schools, students of color generally are less likely than White
students to be identified even when they satisfy criteria for
gifted services (Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; McBee,
2006). Researchers have identified teacher discretion in the
gifted assignment process as a potentially important con-
tributor to this inequity. Because the process often begins
with teacher referral, classroom teachers can play a gate-
keeping role in gifted assignments (Donovan & Cross,
2002). Reliance on teacher referrals can disadvantage stu-
dents of color if teachers hold lower expectations for them or
are less likely to recognize giftedness in such students

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://
www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-
at-sage).
Grissom and Redding
(Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005; Ford &
Grantham, 2003).
To political scientists who study bureaucratic representa-
tion—that is, the idea that who the providers of government
services are matters for how policy outputs are distributed
among client populations (Mosher, 1968)—contexts in
which bureaucrats exercise substantial discretion and in
which race has high policy salience, as it does in education,
create conditions in which bureaucrat race often influences
how populations benefit from government services. Research
in contexts as varied as the Farmers Home Administration,
social welfare agencies, and local law enforcement has
found evidence that client populations of color receive more
positive treatment from government agencies or organiza-
tions staffed by bureaucrats from their same racial or ethnic
background (e.g., Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009; Selden,
1997). For example, Hindera’s (1993) study of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission finds that district
offices employing Black investigators are more likely to
pursue charges of employment discrimination on behalf of
Black complainants (and similarly for Hispanic investiga-
tors and Hispanic complainants). Similarly, in a study of
Florida traffic stop data, Close and Mason (2006) find that
African American and Latino/a drivers are treated less puni-
tively by officers of the same race/ethnicity than they are by
White officers. In the context of gifted assignment, bureau-
cratic representation theory suggests that teachers of color
are more likely than White teachers to exercise discretion on
behalf of students from their same racial or ethnic back-
ground—and similarly for White teachers and White stu-
dents—such that students’ probabilities of being assigned
are higher with own-race teachers. Researchers have, in fact,
provided suggestive evidence of such a relationship, finding
that Black and Hispanic students are better represented in
gifted-and-talented programs in schools that employ larger
numbers of Black and Hispanic teachers (e.g., Nicholson-
Crotty, Grissom, & Nicholson-Crotty, 2011; Rocha &
Hawes, 2009).
These studies, however, have relied exclusively on aggre-
gate (school-level) data on both student and teacher demo-
graphics, limiting the research in a number of key ways.
First, reliance on school-level data to model an individual
phenomenon—such as race-related discretion in student
referrals to gifted programs—raises significant concerns
about the potential for aggregation bias or ecological falla-
cies. Second, and relatedly, use of data on schools rather
than students means that important student-level determi-
nants of gifted assignment, including measures of student
academic ability, cannot be considered or controlled for in
the models. Third, modeling the presence of students in pro-
grams rather than the assignment process itself prevents
drawing conclusions about what factors lead different kinds
of students to transition into gifted services.
2
We use the ECLS-K to model student assignment to
gifted services. The ECLS-K contains data on a nationally
representative cohort of students who were in kindergarten
during the 1998–1999 academic year, following up with
them during first, third, fifth, and eighth grades. These
data have a number of features that allow us to push the
research base forward substantially. First, the data are at
the student level, allowing us both to model the movement
of individual students into gifted programs and to account
for a large number of important student covariates in the
models, including student achievement in math and read-
ing. These data permit for a finer-grained examination of
gifted assignment, demographic gaps in gifted assignment,
and the factors that contribute to these demographic gaps
on a national scale than has been conducted in much prior
work. Second, students are linked to their classroom teach-
ers and teachers’ characteristics, which permits us to test
directly for interactions between student and teacher race
or ethnicity in predicting the movement of students into
gifted programs.
We ask the following research questions. First, to what
extent are African American and Hispanic elementary stu-
dents assigned to gifted programs at disproportionately
lower rates than White or Asian students? Second, to what
extent is this disproportionality explained by other observ-
able student characteristics, such as parental education or
achievement tests scores? Third, does assignment to an own-
race teacher increase a non-White student’s probability of
being assigned to gifted services?2
Our study is motivated by prior work on racial/ethnic dis-
parities in the composition of gifted programs and research
on bureaucratic representation, which emphasizes how
diversity in the providers of public services, including teach-
ers, matters for ameliorating those disparities (see Grissom,
Kern, & Rodriguez, 2015; Grissom, Rodriguez, & Kern, in
press). The next two sections discuss prior research in these
areas. We then describe the data and methodological
approaches to answering our research questions before pre-
senting our results. The final section provides a discussion of
the implications of the results for policy, practice, and future
work in this domain.
Student Race, Teacher Discretion, and Assignment to
Gifted Programs
Researchers have recognized racial and ethnic dispropor-
tionalities in gifted services for some time. In 1998, surveys
from the Office for Civil Rights found that 6.2% of students
were placed in gifted programs. This fraction includes nearly
10% of Asian students, 7.5% of White students, 3.6% of
Hispanic students, and 3.0% of Black students (Donovan &
Cross, 2002). By 2009, the fraction of students in gifted pro-
grams had increased slightly to 6.6%, as had the fractions of

students in underrepresented groups; the fraction of gifted
students who were Black was 3.9%, and Hispanic, 4.6%
(U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Despite these
improvements, however, substantial disproportionalities in
gifted assignment by race and ethnicity persist.
Numerous studies have explored the underrepresentation
of African American students in particular in an attempt to
elucidate contributing factors (Anguino, 2003; Harris,
Brown, Ford, & Richardson, 2003; Kearns, Ford, & Linney,
2004). Ford (1998) outlines several categories of factors
that influence the disproportionate assignment of Black and
Hispanic students to gifted programs. The first set of factors
points to educational inequities associated with under-
achievement among students from traditionally underserved
racial/ethnic groups, which, in turn, reduce the probability
of gifted identification. For example, students of color sys-
tematically are taught by less qualified, less effective teach-
ers (e.g., Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005, 2010; DeMonte
& Hanna, 2014). Tracking (Oakes, 1990) and ability group-
ing (Gamoran, Nystrand, Berends, & LePore, 1995) sepa-
rate students by academic and nonacademic factors in ways
that can disadvantage the learning opportunities of students
of color.
The other factors Ford (1998) identifies pertain to
the processes schools use for identification and screening
of gifted students and the personnel who determine assign-
ment. Identification often begins with a classroom teacher’s
use of checklists, rating scales, informal recommenda-
tions, and cognitive assessments to document a student’s
academic capability and potential and ends with a referral
for further evaluation (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Next,
teachers or other school staff formally evaluate students
using tools based on the district or state’s definition of
giftedness. In all but one state, the main criteria for gifted-
ness is academic performance (Donovan & Cross, 2002),
underscoring the importance of taking student academic
achievement into account in predicting a students’ proba-
bility of gifted assignment. Yet states increasingly have
embraced broader understandings of giftedness as well,
employing a “multiple criteria method” that emphasizes
such factors as student creativity, artistic ability, or leader-
ship. Scholars and advocates have supported the transition
to a more holistic evaluation because of the potentially
detrimental impact on gifted identification of lower scores
on cognitive assessments for African American and
Hispanic students (Joseph & Ford, 2006). The use of such
criteria, however, also provides teachers with greater dis-
cretion in assignment. As all states rely on teacher refer-
rals and input in assignment, teacher perceptions may
influence outcomes at numerous points in the process
(Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2011). To the extent that teacher
perceptions of students are affected by race or ethnicity,
this discretion may lead to unequal treatment of different
Discretion and Disproportionality
groups of students even within the same school or class-
room. For example, racialized teacher perceptions may
lead teachers to misinterpret Black or Hispanic students’
behavior because of different cultural backgrounds; what a
teacher may attribute to precocity for one student may be
considered disruptive behavior for another (Ferguson,
1998). Furthermore, rigorous or valid assessment tools
may not be mandated or utilized, and teachers often are
not trained on strategies for identifying gifted students
(Donovan & Cross, 2002), increasing the influence of
teacher discretion in the screening and referral process.
Linking Teacher Race/Ethnicity to Assignment to
Gifted Services
The major role for teacher discretion in the screening
and referral processes for gifted assignments has prompted
scholars to consider possible school-based mechanisms
that influence assignment to gifted programs. A sizeable
body of research in the fields of political science and public
administration has used the theory of bureaucratic repre-
sentation to examine how the composition of the school
workforce may help explain patterns in minority student
representation in gifted programs across schools. This
research, however, has been less visible to education schol-
ars (Grissom et al., 2015). Normative work on the “repre-
sentative bureaucracy” argues that workers in public
institutions, including schools, should reflect societal
diversity—that is, be descriptively representative—not
only to have legitimacy with the public but to help ensure
that client populations are treated equitably (Kingsley,
1944; Lim, 2006; Mosher, 1968). In this literature, descrip-
tive representation has most often been discussed in terms
of race or ethnicity—unsurprising given a long history of
discriminatory treatment of racial- and ethnic-minority
populations by government in the United States and else-
where—but also in terms of gender, religion, sexual iden-
tity, and other characteristics (Kennedy, 2013). A large
body of empirical research has demonstrated that public
agencies composed of more racially and ethnically repre-
sentative workforces distribute policy outputs more equita-
bly among minority and nonminority client populations
(e.g., Hindera, 1993; Meier, Stewart, & England, 1989;
Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2011; Selden, 1997; Theobald &
Haider-Markel, 2009).
The mechanisms linking descriptive representation to the
distribution of policy outputs are less clear, however. Much
of the literature has focused on so-called active representa-
tion, the idea that minority bureaucrats—or organizations
with larger numbers of minority bureaucrats—behave differ-
ently in ways that produce benefits for minority client popu-
lations. A necessary condition for active representation to
occur is bureaucratic discretion: Bureaucrats must have
3
Grissom and Redding
direct or indirect influence over the distribution of policy
goods or services (Meier, 1993). These differential behaviors
are thought to be rooted in shared values and backgrounds
that may make minority bureaucrats more attuned to past dif-
ferential treatment or present needs of minority constituen-
cies (Keiser, Wilkins, Meier, & Holland, 2002; Meier, 1993).
They may, for example, exercise partiality on behalf of cli-
ents “like them” or advocate for changes in institutional pol-
icy or practices that make the institution more sensitive to
minority interests or emphasize fairness or equity more gen-
erally (Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003; Meier, 1993). In the con-
text of gifted assignments, active representation might occur
when minority teachers recommend minority students for
gifted screening at higher rates or push for universal screen-
ing processes in their schools that help ameliorate gaps that
might occur when minority student giftedness is recognized
less often through “subjective” channels.
As the bureaucratic representation literature has matured,
it has begun to recognize other potential mechanisms linking
descriptive representation to policy outputs. For example,
minority bureaucrats may be better positioned to push
minority clients to increase effort or make other behavioral
changes that improve their own outcomes. The presence of
minority teachers may produce role-modeling effects, for
example, that raise student performance or increase outward
expression of talent in ways that increase the probability of
gifted assignment. To this point, several prior studies have
demonstrated that Black and Hispanic students perform bet-
ter on tests when taught by own-race teachers (e.g., Aaronson,
Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Dee, 2004).
Perhaps even more important, representation scholars
posit that the client population itself may be more willing to
engage with the organization in beneficial ways because of
the presence of bureaucrats with whom they can more easily
communicate or identify (Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006).
In schools, the cultural capital of White middle-class parents
aids in facilitating relationships with teachers and school
personnel and connecting them to information about school
processes, providing them with an advantage over non-
White families in influencing their children’s schooling out-
comes (Lareau, 1987; Lareau & Horvat, 1999). The presence
of non-White teachers may help non-White parents over-
come those disadvantages by, for example, helping parents
feel more comfortable advocating for their children’s needs
or making it more likely that they tap into school informa-
tion networks. In the context of gifted assignment, a non-
White parent may feel more at ease requesting from a
non-White teacher that his or her child be screened or seek-
ing out advice or information from that teacher about how to
obtain gifted services.
Because of the numerous potential mechanisms linking
descriptive representation in the teacher workforce to stu-
dent representation in gifted programs, it is perhaps unsur-
prising that political scientists and public administration
4
scholars have used gifted representation as an outcome for
testing the tenets of bureaucratic representation theory in
numerous studies. Research has, in fact, provided suggestive
evidence of such a relationship, finding that Black and
Hispanic students are better represented in gifted-and-tal-
ented programs in schools that employ larger numbers of
Black and Hispanic teachers (e.g., Grissom et al., 2015, in
press; Grissom, Nicholson-Crotty, & Nicholson-Crotty,
2009; Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2011; Meier & Stewart, 1992;
Rocha & Hawes, 2009).
Although suggestive, previous studies linking teacher
race or ethnicity to differential assignment of students to
gifted services faces a key drawback: reliance on school-
level aggregate data. Essentially, these studies identify a
correlation between the proportion of students from a given
race or ethnic group and the proportion of teachers in the
school from that group, adjusted for other school-level
covariates. Yet without individual data on students and their
teachers, these studies have been unable to model the
assignment process or account for important student-level
characteristics that may confound these relationships,
including student academic achievement. Our analysis steps
into these gaps.
Data and Methods
The data in this study come from the restricted-use version
of the ECLS-K, a nationally representative sample of 21,260
kindergarteners in the 1998–1999 school year followed by
the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)
through eighth grade, gathering data on them at intervals
(Tourangeau et al., 2006). This study uses data collected in
the elementary grades—that is, data collected in the spring of
kindergarten and first, third, and fifth grades—when most
gifted students are identified. We further restrict the analysis
sample to public schools that report having a gifted program
in either reading or math.3 Schools without gifted programs
were excluded to avoid conflating variation in student assign-
ment with other between-school factors, such as school
resources, that might predict the absence of gifted services.
Across the survey waves, between 33% and 38% of pub-
lic schools report having no gifted program, which limits the
analysis sample to a maximum of 10,640 students in kinder-
garten, 9,120 in first grade, 8,250 in third grade, and 7,000 in
fifth grade. Missing data further reduced the available sam-
ple sizes as the ECLS-K data collection progressed. These
missing data can be attributed variously to parental refusal to
further participate in the study, missing assessment data, and
incomplete data from classroom teachers or school person-
nel.4 Given these sample size reductions, we utilized multi-
ple imputation.5 For all estimates, we used longitudinal
weights provided by NCES in all analyses to recover popu-
lation estimates. The largest analytic sample contains 14,280
observations.

Measuring Assignment to Gifted Programs
The dependent variable for this analysis is the student’s
assignment to a gifted program in either reading or mathe-
matics. This variable is measured through teachers’ response
to the question, “Does this child receive instruction and/or
related services in any of the following types of programs in
your school day?” Teachers designated whether or not a stu-
dent was in a gifted-and-talented program in reading or
math.6 To simulate the assignment process, we assume that a
student first identified for gifted services at time t does not
begin receiving them until time t + 1. Thus, our analysis con-
siders the probability of being assigned to gifted services in
the next survey period, conditional on not being assigned in
the present period.7 For example, we label a student as having
been assigned in kindergarten if he or she was not identified
as gifted during kindergarten data collection but was identi-
fied in the first-grade data collection. Similarly, a student is
labeled as having been identified in first grade if he or she
was not gifted in first grade but was in third grade and as
identified in third grade if he or she was not in gifted in third
grade but was as of fifth grade. A consequence of this speci-
fication is the uncertainty of conditions in second or fourth
grade that may have also influenced student assignment that
are not accounted for given the lack of survey data for these
periods.
Student and Teacher Race and Ethnicity
Central to research on representation in the bureaucracy
is shared demographic characteristics between clients and
street-level bureaucrats—in this case, students and teach-
ers. ECLS-K provides categorical information on student
racial and ethnic identification from the parent interview
data in the initial year of data collection. Information on
the race and ethnicity for the student’s classroom teacher
was collected from teacher survey self-reports during each
survey period. Because elementary school students are
very likely to be in self-contained classes, the potential for
mismeasurement from having a student assigned to mul-
tiple teachers was not of large concern. To verify that stu-
dents in the study indeed were in self-contained classes,
we examined the frequency with which different teachers
completed either the dedicated math or reading teacher
survey and found that in kindergarten and first and third
grades, this happened less than 1% of the time in each
year.8
School and Teacher Characteristics
ECLS-K provides extensive information pertaining to the
students’ academic performance, family background, and
classroom and school context. We use the criterion-referenced
composite scale scores for the math and reading achievement
tests, which have been vertically equated for longitudinal
Discretion and Disproportionality
analysis (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken,
2005).9 We standardize scores within year.
Student characteristics include the child’s race and eth-
nicity, gender, a scale measure of socioeconomic status
(SES), a measure of the parent’s report of the child’s health
status at entry to kindergarten, and the child’s age in
months as of September of 1998, approximately the start
of kindergarten. The SES measure is computed by NCES
and combines mother’s and father’s education level, status
of mother’s and father’s occupation, and household
income, imputing missing values and standardizing and
averaging across measures (Tourangeau et al., 2006). The
child health measure is a subjective measure rated on a
5-point scale (excellent to poor), which we reverse-coded
and standardized.
Teacher characteristics include race/ethnicity, years of
experience in the teacher’s current school, and indicators for
whether or not the teacher has a master’s degree or is certi-
fied. Classroom characteristics include class size and class-
room averages for the percentages of Black, Hispanic, and
Asian students plus mean student SES.10 These classroom-
level variables rely on having sufficient respondents within
a classroom to accurately reflect the classroom composition.
In the initial survey years, when respondents were more
highly concentrated in classrooms, these measures likely
have greater validity. Finally, school characteristics include
indicators for whether the school is suburban or urban (with
rural as the omitted category); region of the country (four
regions; East is the omitted category); school enrollment
size; the fraction of Black, Hispanic, and Asian students
within a school; school free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL)
rate; and the school average test performance. Accounting
for school average achievement in particular is important if
teachers’ or others’ perceptions of a student’s performance
and qualification for gifted services is relative to other stu-
dents in that setting (Hibel, Farkas, & Morgan, 2010). A cor-
relation matrix for all control variables appears in Appendix
Table A1.
Regression Analysis
To analyze the relationship between assignment to
gifted programs and student–teacher race congruence, a
series of models are estimated that consider the probability
that a student will be assigned to a gifted program in the
next period for all students not currently in a gifted pro-
gram, with controls for student, teacher, and school charac-
teristics. Equation 1 shows the general form of these
models:
Pr(gifted)ijt+1 = β0 + β1Rijt + β2Cit + β3Tit + β4Sit + γt + ϵit, (1)
where Cit is a vector of the child’s characteristics for student
i in year t, Tit is a vector of characteristics of the student’s
5
Grissom and Redding
teacher and classroom, and Sitis a vector of school character-
istics in a given year. A wave fixed effect γt is included to
control for time-specific correlates of assignment to gifted
services. The dependent variable is a binary indicator set
equal to 1 if a student is assigned to gifted services by the
next survey period and 0 if not, conditional on not currently
being assigned. The vector R includes an indicator for
whether the student is racially/ethnically congruent with his
or her teacher plus a series of interactions between the con-
gruence indicator and student race to test whether racial/eth-
nic congruence is differentially associated with gifted
assignment by student demographic group. Because of con-
cerns that racial/ethnic congruence and same-year test scores
may be endogenous if teacher race/ethnicity affects student
academic performance (e.g., Dee, 2004), our preferred
model includes lagged test score rather than the current-year
score in C, though using the current-year score results in
substantively similar conclusions (see Appendix Tables A2
and A4). All models are estimated using logistic regression
with standard errors clustered at the student level to account
for multiple observations of the same student across time.
A limitation of this approach is that it does not take into
account unobserved school characteristics, such as the
school’s gifted referral and evaluation process, that may
affect a student’s probability of being assigned to gifted ser-
vices. A typical strategy for accounting for such factors is to
include a school fixed effect, which would estimate the
impact of teacher race congruence or other factors on gifted
assignment by comparing assignment patterns across class-
rooms within the same school. Unfortunately, the infre-
quency of gifted assignment in the data—and, for the race
congruence analysis, the lack of variation in teacher race
across classrooms—makes a school fixed-effect approach
infeasible.11
Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive statistics for the main variables we consider
are shown in Table 1. The first row shows what fraction of
students were assigned to gifted services for that grade who
had not previously been assigned, with the next two rows
showing assignment in reading and math separately. The
fraction increases at each grade level but totals approxi-
mately 5% of students (4% each in reading and math).12
Figure 1 breaks gifted assignment down by race/ethnicity
and grade. Consistent with prior research, White and Asian
students are assigned to gifted services at higher rates than
Black and Hispanic students at each grade level.
Comparing Gifted Assignment and Potential Predictors by
Student Race
In Table 2, we provide a comparison by race and ethnicity
first of proportion in gifted programs and then of potential
6
student, teacher/classroom, and school factors that may be
associated with assignment to gifted programs. Two-sided t
tests for differences in means were conducted comparing
White students with African American, Hispanic, and Asian
students, respectively.
There are numerous notable differences across groups.
First, in any given survey wave, an average of 5.3% of
White students in schools with gifted programs are assigned
to gifted services, compared to 2.2% of Black students,
3.5% of Hispanic students, and 6.2% of Asian students.13
We also see differences in other student characteristics by
race and ethnicity. Black students perform nearly half a
standard deviation lower than White students on the read-
ing assessment (0.14 vs. –0.30) and nearly two thirds of a
standard deviation lower on the math assessment (0.21 vs.
–0.41). Hispanic students score slightly less than half a
standard deviation lower than White students in reading
and math. There are no statistically significant differences
in the reading and math test performance of Asian students
and White students. Differences for SES are similar. Both
Black and Hispanic students are half a standard deviation
lower on the scale measure of SES.
Patterns in teacher race and ethnicity show much differ-
ent likelihoods of exposure to a same-race teacher in ele-
mentary school for students of different backgrounds. As
Table 1 shows, 91% of teachers in the sample are White,
so it is unsurprising that White students are much more
likely than other students to find themselves in a class-
room with a race-congruent teacher. In fact, for White stu-
dents, the rate of teacher race congruence is 95%. In
contrast, for Black students in elementary school, race
congruence with one’s teacher in occurs only about 22%
of the time, and for Hispanic students, 20% of the time.
Asian students have the lowest rate of congruence, only
9%. These patterns bolster our interest in testing whether
assignment to an own-race teacher is associated with dif-
ferential gifted assignment.
We also examine differences by teacher qualifications,
including teaching experience in the school, degree level,
and certification status. Teachers of White students have
been in their schools the longest, on average; followed by
Asian, Hispanic, and Black students, whose teachers have
approximately a year and a half fewer years in their
schools than those of White students. White and Asian stu-
dents’ teachers also have higher educational attainment.
Approximately 40% of these teachers have a master’s degree
or above, compared to 33% for Black students and 34% for
Hispanic students. Black and Hispanic students are also less
likely to be taught by a fully certified teacher. Asian students
are enrolled in slightly larger classes than White students, on
average. Black and Hispanic students’ peers are of signifi-
cantly lower SES relative to White students.
The bottom section of the table compares school charac-
teristics by student race and ethnicity. Black, Hispanic, and
Table 1
Mean Sample Characteristics, by Grade Level

Characteristic Kindergarten First grade Third grade All years

Students assigned to gifted 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05

  Assigned to gifted in reading 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.04
  Assigned to gifted in math 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.04
Race congruence  
  White Student × White Teacher 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.63
  Black Student × Black Teacher 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03
  Hispanic Student × Hispanic Teacher 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03
  Asian Student × Asian Teacher <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Student characteristics  
  Reading test (standardized) −0.05 0.02 −0.01 −0.00
  Math test (standardized) 0.02 0.06 −0.01 0.03
 Female 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.49
 White 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.66
 Black 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15
 Hispanic 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.17
 Asian 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
 SES −0.05 −0.09 −0.13 −0.10
  Parent’s health rating −0.03 −0.03 −0.03 −0.02
  Age in months at start of kindergarten 66.46 66.58 66.43 66.36
Teacher/classroom characteristics  
 White 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.91
 Black 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06
 Hispanic 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04
 Asian 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
  Teaching experience (in current school) 9.66 9.08 9.84 9.59
  Master’s degree 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.39
 Certified 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93
  Class size 21.01 20.36 21.18 20.80
  Class mean SES −0.06 −0.09 −0.11 −0.09
  Class percentage Black 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15
  Class percentage Hispanic 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.16
  Class percentage Asian 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04
School characteristics  
 Urban 0.30 0.23 0.26 0.27
 Rural 0.25 0.29 0.30 0.27
 Northeast 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.12
 Midwest 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.23
 South 0.48 0.44 0.46 0.46
 West 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.19
  School size (100s) 5.61 5.62 5.42 5.52
  Fraction White students 0.69 0.67 0.66 0.66
  Fraction Black students 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15
  Fraction Hispanic students 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.13
  Fraction Asian students 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
  School percentage FRPL 0.34 0.32 0.35 0.34
  School mean test score 29.65 49.41 95.92 57.48
Observations 7,190 5,910 5,130 15,130

Note. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public schools with gifted programs only.
Sample sizes rounded in accordance with National Center for Education Statistics nondisclosure rules. SES = socioeconomic status; FRPL = free or reduced-
price lunch.

7
Figure 1.  Students assigned to gifted programs, by survey year and student race.
Asian students are, on average, more likely to attend larger,
urban schools and schools with higher FRPL percentages.
Black and Hispanic students attend schools with lower mean
test scores, on average.
Explaining Disproportionalities in Assignment to Gifted
Programs
Next, we turn to predicting the probability of gifted
assignment using student, teacher, classroom, and
school characteristics. In Table 3, we document racial
and ethnic disproportionalities in a logistic regression
format and examine how other factors explain gifted
assignment and the racial/ethnic differences we observe.
Gifted assignment in this table is operationalized as the
student is assigned to gifted services in either reading or
math.
The first column includes only race and ethnicity vari-
ables, where White students are the base category. The
results show that Asian students are more likely than White
students to be assigned to gifted services, while Hispanic
students are less likely, and Black students are less likely
still. The odds of being assigned to a gifted program are
66% lower for Black students than for White students. For
Hispanic students, the odds of assignment to gifted are
47% lower than for White students. The odds of assign-
ment for Asian students are 44% higher than for White
students.
8
The second column adds a control for student scores on
the ECLS-K math and reading assessments, both of which,
unsurprisingly, are strongly positively associated with gifted
assignment. The addition of these variables drastically
reduces the assignment gap between White students and
Hispanic students and, to a lesser extent, Black students. In
fact, the gap between White and Hispanic students all but
disappears and is statistically indistinguishable from zero,
suggesting that differences in assessment scores explain the
entire White–Hispanic differential. Also, the White–Asian
gap in column 2 is no longer statistically significant. Notably,
however, even when controlling for math and reading
knowledge or ability, Black students are still significantly
less likely to be assigned to gifted services. Based on this
model, the predicted probability of assignment for Black
students is approximately half the probability for White stu-
dents. The addition of controls for student sex, SES, health,
and age at kindergarten entry (column 3) does little to change
the results. Student SES is strongly positively associated
with likelihood of assignment, but the inclusion of these
additional variables closes the Black–White gap only slightly
further, suggesting that factors beyond observable student
background characteristics are responsible for explaining
the Black–White gap in gifted assignment.
Columns 4 and 5 add further controls for teacher, class-
room, and school characteristics. These additions lead to
several observations. First, the gap in gifted assignment
between Black students and students of other racial and
Table 2
Comparing Student, Teacher, Classroom, and School Characteristics by Student Race and Ethnicity

Characteristic White Black Hispanic Asian

Student characteristics  
  Students assigned to gifted 0.053 0.022*** 0.035*** 0.062*
   Students assigned to gifted in reading 0.050 0.021*** 0.034*** 0.058*
   Students assigned to gifted in math 0.043 0.017*** 0.029*** 0.054
  Reading test (standardized) 0.14 −0.30*** −0.34*** 0.17
  Math test (standardized) 0.21 −0.41*** −0.30*** 0.12
 Female 0.49 0.47 0.52 0.54*
 SES 0.05 −0.42*** −0.45*** 0.01
  Parent’s health rating 0.07 −0.17*** −0.24*** −0.11**
  Age in months at start of kindergarten 66.64 66.31 65.75*** 65.42***
Teacher/classroom characteristics  
 White 0.95 0.76*** 0.89*** 0.85***
 Black 0.03 0.22*** 0.04*** 0.04
 Hispanic 0.01 0.02 0.20*** 0.02**
 Asian 0.01 0.01 0.03*** 0.09***
  Teaching experience (in current school) 10.18 8.53*** 8.25*** 8.65***
  Master’s degree 0.41 0.33*** 0.34*** 0.39
 Certified 0.94 0.91*** 0.91*** 0.94
  Class size 20.76 20.79 20.90 21.38**
  Class mean SES 0.03 −0.36*** −0.36*** −0.00*
  Class percentage Black 0.05 0.68*** 0.05** 0.06
  Class percentage Hispanic 0.06 0.05 0.68*** 0.11***
  Class percentage Asian 0.03 0.02* 0.05*** 0.57***
School characteristics  
 Urban 0.19 0.40*** 0.43*** 0.35***
 Rural 0.35 0.12*** 0.20*** 0.20***
 Northeast 0.14 0.07*** 0.07*** 0.12
 Midwest 0.29 0.07*** 0.12*** 0.23***
 South 0.42 0.81*** 0.33*** 0.25***
 West 0.15 0.05*** 0.49*** 0.39***
  School size (100s) 5.31 5.61*** 6.09*** 5.80***
  Fraction White students 0.80 0.40*** 0.42*** 0.52***
  Fraction Black students 0.09 0.49*** 0.08 0.12**
  Fraction Hispanic students 0.07 0.07 0.46*** 0.18***
  Fraction Asian students 0.02 0.02 0.05*** 0.18***
  School percentage FRPL 0.26 0.53*** 0.46*** 0.35***
  School mean test score 56.63 50.98*** 54.9*** 57.82**
Observations 9,400 1,840 2,380 1,060

Note. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public schools with gifted programs only.
Statistical significance based on a t test comparing White students to the other groups. Sample sizes rounded in accordance with National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics nondisclosure rules. SES = socioeconomic status; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

ethnic backgrounds remains when characteristics of
schools are included. In the fully saturated model, the odds
of assignment to gifted are 50% lower for Black students
than for White students. If anything, accounting for Black
and Hispanic students’ teacher, classroom, and school
characteristics makes the point estimates of the assignment
gap larger than if only student characteristics are included.
In terms of predicted probabilities with all other variables
at their means, White students have a predicted probability
of assignment of 6.2%, whereas Black students have
only a 2.8% probability, a statistically and substantively
important difference. Second, most teacher and classroom

9
Grissom and Redding
characteristics are uncorrelated with the probability of a
student’s assignment to gifted programs, at least when student
characteristics are included in the models. One exception is
that students in classrooms with Black teachers are more
likely to be assigned, highlighting that further examination
of teacher race effects is warranted. Finally, several school
characteristics are associated with assignment probability,
including school racial/ethnic composition; students in
schools with larger fractions of Black and Hispanic stu-
dents have higher assignment probabilities, while those in
schools with larger Asian populations have lower assign-
ment probabilities.
Table 4 shows these same results, this time separating
assignment to gifted programs in reading from assignment
to gifted programs in math. Making this distinction gener-
ally does not change the interpretations in Table 3, though
it does add some nuance. The gifted-assignment gap for
Black students is large and evident in both subjects, even
when accounting for the full set of control variables. We
also find that Asian students are more likely than White
students to be assigned to gifted services in math (but not
reading) than other factors would predict. This finding is
consistent with evidence of positive stereotyping of Asian
students as quantitatively gifted and with evidence that
Asian parents are more likely to participate in gifted iden-
tification processes, among other possible explanations
(Kitano, 2011). Most other variables in the model have the
same estimated association with reading assignment as
with math assignment in the full models.
In summary, large disparities exist in gifted assignment
by race and ethnicity in elementary schools with gifted pro-
grams, and neither math and reading assessment scores nor
other background characteristics fully account for the dis-
proportionately low assignment of Black students, in partic-
ular. Nor are the disparities explained by the kinds of schools
Black students attend. There is some suggestion that the race
of the teacher to which a student is assigned does predict a
student’s assignment probability, an issue into which we
next delve further.
Results for Teacher–Student Race Congruence and
Assignment to Gifted Programs
Table 5 considers the question of whether assignment to
an own-race teacher matters for a student’s probability of
assignment to gifted services, focusing specifically on
Black students as the group identified as underrepresented
in the preceding analyses. As in Tables 3 and 4, a variety of
models with different combinations of control variables are
shown, though control variables are omitted from the table
for brevity (full results are shown in Appendix Table A3).14
The addition in Table 5 is an indicator for whether the stu-
dent is race congruent with his or her teacher and a series
of interactions between race congruence and student race
10
and ethnicity. We show results both for assignment to either
reading or math and for assignment to reading or math
separately.
The takeaway from Table 5 is that, consistent with the
predictions from bureaucratic representation theory,
assignment to a Black teacher partially ameliorates the dis-
parity in gifted assignment probability between Black stu-
dents and students from other groups, particularly for
assignment in reading. For the most saturated model for
reading assignment (column 6), the odds ratios suggest that
Black students with a Black teacher are significantly more
likely to be assigned to gifted services than Black students
without Black teachers. The predicted probability of
assignment to gifted programs in reading for Black stu-
dents in classrooms with Black teachers is 6.2%, compared
to 2.1% for Black students with non-Black teachers, hold-
ing other variables at their means. In other words, all else
equal, Black students are predicted to be assigned to gifted
services 3 times more often in classrooms with Black
teachers than with non-Black teachers. Significant evi-
dence of a correlation between gifted assignment and race
congruence is not found for White, Hispanic, or Asian stu-
dents. When we limit to assignment in math only, we do
not find evidence of a race congruence association for any
student subgroup.
As one check on these results, Appendix Table A4 con-
trols for test scores in the current year. Although we prefer
the model controlling for the lagged test score because of
concerns that the current test score is endogenous to assign-
ment, making this change strengthens the case for an asso-
ciation between race congruence and gifted assignment for
Black students.
Given the significant associations for the presence of a
race-congruent teacher for Black students in Table 5, in
Figure 2 we plot the predicted probabilities from this
model for Black students in race-congruent and race-
incongruent classrooms compared to White students with
and without a same-race teacher across the score distribu-
tion (averaging math and reading) from the median to the
100th percentile. The likelihood of assignment to gifted
services increases for all students as their test scores
increase. White students are assigned at higher probabili-
ties throughout the distribution, but assignment probabili-
ties for Black students with Black teachers are similar to
those of White students. In contrast, Black students with
non-Black teachers are predicted to be assigned to gifted
programs at consistently lower probabilities than the three
other groups of students depicted.
Discussion and Conclusions
As Konstantopoulos, Modi, and Hedges (2001) argue in
their study of gifted students, managing gifted students’
intellectual talent “is essential to maintaining high national
Table 3
Predicting Assignment to Gifted Programs

Characteristic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Student characteristics  
  Black student 0.34** 0.57** 0.63* 0.44** 0.50**
(−5.80) (−2.83) (−2.29) (−3.17) (−2.84)
  Hispanic student 0.53** 0.96 1.07 0.84 0.89
(−4.91) (−0.27) (0.44) (−0.81) (−0.51)
  Asian student 1.44* 1.25 1.20 1.11 1.19
(2.31) (1.35) (1.05) (0.46) (0.76)
  Reading test score (standardized) 1.78*** 1.72** 1.73** 1.75**
  (10.14) (9.32) (9.14) (8.93)
  Math test score (standardized) 1.97*** 1.90** 1.93** 1.95**
  (11.20) (10.11) (9.81) (9.73)
  Female student 0.99 0.99 1.01
  (−0.06) (−0.08) (0.12)
  Socioeconomic status 1.38** 1.58** 1.58**
  (4.69) (5.03) (4.99)
  Student health 0.95 0.98 0.98
  (−0.91) (−0.37) (−0.42)
  Age in months as of start of kindergarten 0.99 0.99 0.99
  (−0.70) (−0.60) (−0.94)
Teacher/classroom characteristics  
  Black teacher 1.72** 1.44†
  (2.60) (1.71)
  Hispanic teacher 0.96 0.78
  (−0.15) (−0.79)
  Asian teacher 1.20 1.29
  (0.53) (0.71)
  Teaching experience (in current school) 1.00 1.00
  (0.14) (0.29)
  Master’s degree 0.96 1.01
  (−0.39) (0.13)
 Certified 1.03 0.99
  (0.14) (−0.03)
  Class size 1.01 1.01
  (0.40) (0.51)
  Class percentage Black students 0.83 0.91
  (−1.47) (−0.61)
  Class percentage Hispanic students 1.49 0.47†
  (1.26) (−1.85)
  Class percentage Asian students 1.42 0.73
  (1.14) (−0.65)
School characteristics  
 Urban 1.12
  (0.85)
 Rural 0.92
  (−0.56)
 Midwest 1.46*
  (2.18)

(continued)

11
Table 3 (continued)
Characteristic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 South 1.17
  (0.91)
 West 1.13
  (0.62)
  School size 0.96
  (−1.49)
  School FRPL rate 1.06
  (0.16)
  Fraction Black students 5.29**
  (3.38)
  Fraction Hispanic students 4.09*
  (2.15)
  Fraction Asian students 0.21†
  (−1.66)
  School mean test score 1.00
  (−0.02)
Observations 14,280 14,280 14,280 14,280 14,280

Note. Coefficients reported as odds ratios. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public
schools with gifted programs only. The t statistics, in parentheses, are based on robust standard errors clustered at the child level. FRPL = free or reduced-
price lunch.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4
Predicting Assignment to Gifted Programs, by Subject

  Reading Math

Characteristic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Student characteristics  
  Black student 0.36** 0.61* 0.67† 0.39** 0.45** 0.36** 0.62* 0.66† 0.51* 0.53*
(−5.26) (−2.42) (−1.91) (−3.41) (−3.11) (−4.67) (−2.12) (−1.75) (−2.26) (−2.11)
  Hispanic student 0.54** 0.98 1.08 0.84 0.90 0.46** 0.93 1.03 0.67 0.71
(−4.47) (−0.13) (0.47) (−0.73) (−0.45) (−4.61) (−0.36) (0.13) (−1.55) (−1.25)
  Asian student 1.46* 1.24 1.18 1.16 1.23 1.65** 1.59 1.53* 1.73† 1.83*
(2.27) (1.19) (0.92) (0.61) (0.87) (2.76) (2.22) (2.04) (1.95) (2.10)
  Reading test score 1.81** 1.74** 1.76** 1.78** 1.75** 1.71** 1.75** 1.82**
(standardized)   (9.83) (8.94) (8.80) (8.55) (8.65) (8.23) (8.28) (8.67)
  Math test score 1.96** 1.91** 1.93** 1.95** 1.94** 1.87** 1.88** 1.92**
(standardized)   (10.58) (9.66) (9.33) (9.21) (9.33) (8.30) (8.01) (8.33)
  Female student 1.06 1.06 1.09 0.88 0.84 0.84
  (0.54) (0.52) (0.71) (−0.96) (−1.23) (−1.24)
 SES 1.35** 1.58** 1.58** 1.31** 1.59** 1.58**
  (4.05) (4.69) (4.66) (3.24) (4.06) (3.98)
  Student health 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.01
  (−0.78) (−0.28) (−0.28) (−0.35) (−0.12) (0.15)
  Age in months as of 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98
start of kindergarten   (−0.67) (−0.46) (−0.81) (−0.85) (−0.69) (−0.84)
Teacher/classroom characteristics  
  Black teacher 1.85** 1.51+ 1.85** 2.32** 1.81* 2.32**
  (2.89) (1.90) (2.89) (3.50) (2.40) (3.50)

(continued)

12
Table 4 (continued)
  Reading Math

Characteristic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

  Hispanic teacher 1.05 0.82 1.05 0.70 0.54 0.70

  (0.17) (−0.60) (0.17) (−0.83) (−1.26) (−0.83)
  Asian teacher 1.26 1.31 1.26 0.58 0.60 0.58
  (0.66) (0.72) (0.66) (−1.09) (−0.97) (−1.09)
  Teaching experience (in 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
current school)   (0.18) (0.32) (0.18) (−0.78) (−0.70) (−0.78)
  Master’s degree 0.96 1.03 0.96 0.93 1.00 0.93
  (−0.33) (0.22) (−0.33) (−0.51) (−0.00) (−0.51)
 Certified 1.02 0.99 1.02 1.45 1.46 1.45
  (0.09) (−0.04) (0.09) (1.49) (1.52) (1.49)
  Class size 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.02 1.02 1.02
  (−0.33) (−0.17) (−0.33) (0.86) (0.80) (0.86)
  Class mean SES 0.81 0.92 0.81 0.73* 0.91 0.73*
  (−1.55) (−0.57) (−1.55) (−2.00) (−0.51) (−2.00)
  Class percentage Black 1.85† 0.50 1.85† 1.05 0.24** 1.05
students   (1.86) (−1.55) (1.86) (0.12) (−2.68) (0.12)
  Class percentage 1.44 0.73 1.44 1.92† 0.86 1.92†
Hispanic students   (1.12) (−0.60) (1.12) (1.72) (−0.22) (1.72)
  Class percentage Asian 1.07 1.19 1.07 0.96 1.07 0.96
students   (0.18) (0.41) (0.18) (−0.08) (0.14) (−0.08)
School characteristics  
 Urban 1.09 0.91
  (0.60) (−0.57)
 Rural 0.92 0.80
  (−0.52) (−1.05)
 Midwest 1.35 1.40
  (1.57) (1.63)
 South 1.22 1.27
  (1.07) (1.19)
 West 1.12 1.09
  (0.52) (0.33)
  School size 0.95+ 0.96
  (−1.94) (−1.02)
  School FRPL rate 1.13 1.30
  (0.32) (0.58)
  Fraction Black students 5.98** 6.51**
  (3.32) (3.02)
  Fraction Hispanic 4.50* 4.11
students   (2.15) (1.51)
  Fraction Asian students 0.20 0.25
  (−1.63) (−1.06)
  School mean test score 1.00 0.97*
  (0.07) (−2.48)
Observations 14,230 14,230 14,230 14,230 14,230 12,070 12,070 12,070 12,070 12,070

Note. Coefficients reported as odds ratios. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public
schools with gifted programs only. The t statistics, in parentheses, are based on robust standard errors clustered at the child level. SES = socioeconomic
status; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

13
Table 5
Predicting Assignment to Gifted Programs With Student–Teacher Race Congruence

Reading or math assignment Reading assignment Math assignment

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Black student 0.38** 0.29** 0.31** 0.35** 0.24** 0.26** 0.56 0.47 0.51
(−2.65) (−3.16) (−3.03) (−2.70) (−3.43) (−3.24) (−1.29) (−1.59) (−1.45)
Hispanic student 0.90 0.74 0.77 0.82 0.69 0.72 1.10 0.79 0.83
(−0.36) (−0.87) (−0.77) (−0.59) (−1.06) (−0.90) (0.25) (−0.55) (−0.41)
Asian student 1.06 1.02 1.05 0.95 0.97 1.01 1.78 1.87 1.96
(0.16) (0.05) (0.13) (−0.16) (−0.08) (0.01) (1.38) (1.37) (1.49)
Black teacher 1.28 1.19 1.01 1.31 1.18 1.00 2.29* 2.19* 1.76
(0.82) (0.55) (0.03) (0.84) (0.51) (−0.01) (2.18) (2.05) (1.48)
Hispanic teacher 0.93 0.90 0.75 1.07 1.02 0.83 0.87 0.82 0.69
(−0.21) (−0.30) (−0.76) (0.19) (0.07) (−0.49) (−0.29) (−0.42) (−0.70)
Asian teacher 1.10 1.09 1.13 1.09 1.08 1.08 0.47 0.48 0.52
(0.23) (0.20) (0.26) (0.19) (0.18) (0.15) (−0.91) (−0.91) (−0.80)
Race congruence 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.80 0.81 0.81 1.15 1.16 1.15
(−0.48) (−0.44) (−0.47) (−0.75) (−0.70) (−0.68) (0.39) (0.40) (0.39)
Black Student × 3.26† 3.26† 3.02† 3.90* 3.88* 3.48† 1.13 1.19 1.09
Race Congruence (1.79) (1.79) (1.67) (1.96) (1.96) (1.79) (0.15) (0.22) (0.11)
Hispanic Student × 1.55 1.40 1.33 1.58 1.42 1.35 1.43 1.20 1.08
Race Congruence (0.78) (0.59) (0.48) (0.80) (0.61) (0.49) (0.45) (0.23) (0.09)
Asian Student × 1.00 0.96 1.27 1.28 1.25 1.65 1.42 1.49 2.13
Race Congruence (0.00) (−0.06) (0.32) (0.33) (0.29) (0.64) (0.31) (0.35) (0.65)
Reading test score 1.71** 1.72** 1.74** 1.73** 1.74** 1.76** 1.70** 1.71** 1.77**
(standardized) (9.26) (9.37) (9.28) (8.84) (8.99) (8.86) (8.06) (8.24) (8.62)
Math test score 1.91** 1.92** 1.92** 1.92** 1.93** 1.93** 1.88** 1.89** 1.93**
(standardized) (10.17) (10.04) (9.80) (9.73) (9.61) (9.34) (8.34) (8.26) (8.50)
Observations 14,280 14,280 14,280 14,230 14,230 14,230 12,070 12,070 12,070

Note. Coefficients reported as odds ratios. All models include student controls. Models 2, 5, and 8 add teacher and classroom controls; Models 3, 6, and 9
add school controls (not shown). Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public schools with
gifted programs only. The t statistics, in parentheses, are based on standard errors clustered at the child level.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

standards of achievement in education, international com-
petitiveness, and labor market efficiency” (p. 344). This goal
of fostering academic growth among academically talented
youth hinges on the proper identification of gifted students.
Yet our results show that identification of gifted students
depends, in part, on factors having little to do with student
performance or ability that lead students to be assigned dis-
proportionately on the basis of race and ethnicity. Taking
student math and reading assessment scores into account,
which school a student attends and the characteristics of the
classroom to which a student is assigned, including the race
of the classroom teacher, each partially explain students’
gifted assignment probabilities and, to some degree, the
observed gaps among students of different demographic
groups.
In particular, we uncover evidence that Black students in
classrooms with non-Black teachers are systematically less
likely to receive gifted services in subsequent years, partic-
ularly in reading. The lower likelihood of assignment for
high-achieving Black students in classrooms with non-
Black teachers diverts gifted services from the very students
who may benefit the most from such programs (Card &
Giuliano, 2014). Representative bureaucracy theory sug-
gests multiple mechanisms that might produce such a pat-
tern. One explanation is that teachers exercise discretion in
student referral, diagnosis, or selection along racial/ethnic
lines in ways that contribute to patterns of disproportional-
ity in assignment. Teachers may perceive potential gifted-
ness differently in students from other-race groups because
of differences in backgrounds or biases in their judgments
or expectations (Gershenson, Holt, & Papageorge, 2015;
Grissom et al., 2015). Alternatively, students may perform
or behave differently in the presence of an own-race teacher
in ways that make giftedness easier to identify, or students

14
Figure 2.  Predicted assignment to gifted services for Black and White students.
or parents may engage differently in the gifted assignment
process itself in the presence of own-race teachers (Grissom
et al., 2015; Lim, 2006). For example, Black parents may
feel more comfortable reaching out to a Black teacher to
suggest that a child be tested or may be more responsive
when that teacher reaches out to encourage the family to
sign the child up for gifted services. An important task for
future research is to explore these mechanisms. Nevertheless,
this finding that Black students—even with the same assess-
ment scores in schools with similar characteristics—are less
likely to be assigned to gifted services, at least in reading,
when taught by a non-Black teacher raises serious concerns
in the context of an educational system in which approxi-
mately 80% of Black elementary school students are taught
by other-race teachers.
That Black students are overwhelmingly taught by non-
Black teachers reflects a lack of diversity in the teacher
workforce. Although 43% of the public school student pop-
ulation are students of color, non-White teachers make up
only about 17% of the teaching workforce (Bireda & Chait,
2011; Grissom et al., 2015), and this discrepancy may be
growing as the schools become more diverse (Boser, 2014).
Scholars have cited numerous justifications for policies
aimed at diversifying teaching demographically, including
role-modeling benefits for students of color, greater likeli-
hood of culturally relevant instruction, and lower teacher
churn in schools with large concentrations of disadvan-
taged teachers (Bireda & Chait, 2011; Boser, 2014;
Ingersoll & May, 2011; Quiocho & Rios, 2000; Villegas
& Irvine, 2010). The evidence presented here adds to this
list, suggesting that greater teacher diversity may help
ameliorate racial gaps in student assignment to gifted pro-
grams. Given these results, future work might investigate
whether these patterns may also hold for other student out-
comes with similar gaps, including discipline or referral to
special education services.
Of course, if teacher discretion is indeed the primary
mechanism underlying the race congruence result, policy-
makers and education leaders need not wait for greater
teacher workforce diversity to address the issue we high-
light. In special education, as a result of three decades of
legal challenges, districts have made strides in minimizing
the inequitable exercise of discretion through the adoption
of less biased identification and placement systems, includ-
ing enhanced training for teachers on identification and the
use of norm-referenced instruments (Zhang & Katsiyannis,
2002). Evidence suggests that such processes help equalize
the representation of Black students in special education in
elementary school (Hibel et al., 2010; Morgan, Farkas,
Hillemeier, & Maczuga, 2012). Similar steps could be
taken to formalize the processes for gifted identification to
form what Joseph and Ford (2006) refer to as “nondiscrim-
inatory assessment.” They describe a process that draws
upon a variety of sources of student data and ensures that,
rather than a single individual making assignment deci-
sions, assignment teams using culturally sensitive
15
Grissom and Redding
assessments are engaged in evaluation. School systems
might also move toward universal gifted screening proce-
dures to reduce the role of teacher discretion in placement
processes. In fact, universal screening may help address
other potential sources of disproportionalities associated
with differences in referral rates, such as parental advo-
cacy. Evidence suggests that shifting to universal screening
procedures indeed increases identification rates for non-
White students (Card & Giuliano, 2015).
Teacher preparation and professional development may
be particularly important avenues for reducing racial dis-
parities at the teacher referral stage. Research has docu-
mented that White preservice teachers often bring a dearth
of cross-cultural experience and knowledge with which to
negotiate how to teach students of color (Cochran-Smith,
2000; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Sleeter, 2001), particularly
for Black students (Ladson-Billings, 2000). Addressing the
need to train culturally responsive teachers, one approach
has been to focus on specific strategies that inform how
implicit biases may affect decision making and behavior.
Research from a number of domains, including the legal
profession, health care, law enforcement, and professional
sports, suggests that explicit training to increase awareness
of prejudice or stereotypes may reduce the unintentional
racial bias from decisions made when the level of discre-
tion over outcomes is high (e.g., Burgess, van Ryn, Dovidio,
& Saha, 2007; Correll et al., 2007; Greenwald, Oakes, &
Hoffman, 2003; Kang et al., 2012; Plant & Peruche, 2005;
Pope, Price, & Wolfers, 2013). Studies in K–12 and higher
education similarly indicate that training around diversity
can reduce racial bias in participants’ perceptions (Denson,
2009; Engberg, 2004). In the context of gifted education,
training for teachers could emphasize strategies aimed at
identifying giftedness among racially or ethnically diverse
students and identification approaches that are not culture-
blind (Ford, Moore, & Scott, 2011).
We emphasize, however, that teacher–student race con-
gruence only partially explains the apparent underassign-
ment of Black students to gifted programs that remains
even after student test scores; other background character-
istics, such as SES; and classroom and school characteris-
tics are taken into account. Unlike the underrepresentation
of Hispanic students relative to White students, which is
largely explained by differences in reading and math
achievement scores, the Black–White gap in gifted assign-
ment cannot be fully explained by the relatively large num-
ber of control variables included in our models. The
persistence of this gap points to a need for additional
research into the structural, social, and cultural contribu-
tors to differences in assignment even for high-achieving
Black students. The finding that Asian students are over-
represented in gifted programs relative to other students,
particularly in math, even after including extensive control
16
variables in the models, also highlights an avenue for addi-
tional explanatory research.
Our study faces a number of limitations. First, we lack
data on teachers’ actual identification, referral, and diagno-
sis behaviors and instead approximate this complex pro-
cess with information on whether the student moves from
not receiving gifted services to receiving them in consecu-
tive survey periods. This approximation is more problem-
atic in some years because the ECLS-K did not collect data
in second and fourth grades. Second, data limitations pre-
vent us from more fully accounting for unobserved charac-
teristics that might bias our results. For example, it could
be that motivated parents both push for their children to be
assigned to same-race teachers and advocate for them to be
tested for gifted classification. If so, we risk attributing the
impact of parental involvement to the presence of a race-
congruent teacher. We attempt to account for a number of
student, teacher, and school characteristics to avoid these
sources of bias, but larger data sets of the type maintained
for state administrative purposes could permit other model-
ing strategies, such as the inclusion of student or teacher
fixed effects, that would provide more convincing esti-
mates. An additional data limitation is that the ECLS-K
data contain no measures of student aptitude. We include
math and reading achievement scores in our models, but if
schools aim to target gifted services at high-aptitude stu-
dents, regardless of past achievement, these scores may not
be sufficient. Rather than interpreting our results as defini-
tive evidence that teacher discretion contributes to dispro-
portionalities in student gifted assignment, we interpret
them as suggesting new avenues for further research to bet-
ter understand a complex set of social and educational
processes.
Future studies could take advantage of administrative
data sets that permit a more precise modeling of the gifted
assignment process. In particular, studies that use more
robust district or state administrative data could utilize
variation in referral, identification, and evaluation mech-
anisms across schools and differences in students’ deci-
sions to take advantage of gifted services following
nomination, which may also differ by student characteris-
tics, to isolate which stages contribute to the underrepre-
sentation of students of color. Qualitative exploration of
the practices that schools and their teachers engage in
during assignment or how parents interface with schools
could elucidate other factors that influence student place-
ment in gifted programs. Future work could also be
extended to retention in gifted programs. As gifted pro-
grams themselves do not always embrace the diverse cul-
tures of their students (Ford, 1998; Ford et al., 2008),
research could address the connection between retention
and underrepresentation, and the roles of diverse teachers
in student retention.
 Appendix

Table A1
Correlation Matrix for Control Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

  1. Gifted assignment —  
  2. Black child −0.06 —  
  3. Hispanic child −0.05 −0.20 —  
  4. Asian child 0.05 −0.11 −0.15 —  
  5. Test score 0.26 −0.08 −0.07 0.06 —  
(standardized)
  6. SES 0.18 −0.16 −0.29 0.03 0.13 —  
  7. School percentage −0.06 0.26 0.30 0.01 −0.08 −0.47 —  
FRPL
  8. Fraction Black −0.01 0.64 −0.12 −0.04 −0.07 −0.17 0.38 —  
students
  9. Fraction Hispanic −0.02 −0.14 0.68 0.02 −0.06 −0.28 0.40 −0.16 —  
students
10. Fraction Asian 0.02 −0.08 0.04 0.48 0.07 0.03 0.02 −0.07 0.07 —  
students
11. School mean test 0.16 −0.06 −0.05 0.05 0.94 0.06 −0.08 −0.08 −0.06 0.07 —  
score
12. Class mean SES 0.13 −0.17 −0.32 0.05 0.12 0.75 −0.59 −0.22 −0.37 0.04 0.09 —  
13. Class percentage −0.04 0.79 −0.17 −0.09 −0.07 −0.16 0.31 0.81 −0.16 −0.10 −0.07 −0.22 —  
Black
14. Class percentage −0.04 −0.17 0.83 −0.08 −0.07 −0.29 0.34 −0.14 0.82 0.05 −0.06 −0.38 −0.21 —  
Hispanic
15. Class percentage 0.05 −0.10 −0.08 0.74 0.06 0.05 0.02 −0.05 0.04 0.63 0.06 0.07 −0.12 −0.09 —
Asian

Note. SES = socioeconomic status; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.

Table A2
Modeling Student Assignment to Gifted Services Using Current Year’s Math and Reading Achievement Test Scores
Reading Math

Characteristic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Student characteristics  
  Black student 0.36** 0.74 0.79 0.48** 0.53* 0.36** 0.77 0.80 0.57† 0.63
(−5.26) (−1.52) (−1.13) (−2.76) (−2.50) (−4.67) (−1.19) (−0.95) (−1.87) (−1.61)
  Hispanic student 0.54** 1.10 1.19 0.82 0.88 0.46** 0.99 1.07 0.67 0.71
(−4.47) (0.60) (1.13) (−0.85) (−0.56) (−4.61) (−0.07) (0.33) (−1.54) (−1.26)
  Asian student 1.46* 1.53* 1.49† 1.31 1.40 1.65** 1.80** 1.75** 1.87* 1.98*
(2.27) (2.12) (1.93) (1.23) (1.56) (2.76) (2.90) (2.74) (2.30) (2.50)
  Reading test score 2.51** 2.41** 2.42** 2.58** 2.33** 2.28** 2.29** 2.54**
(standardized)   (13.78) (12.73) (12.67) (13.48) (10.53) (10.30) (10.07) (10.98)
  Math test score 2.31** 2.25** 2.27** 2.39** 2.45** 2.35** 2.39** 2.55**
(standardized)   (10.11) (9.55) (9.52) (10.21) (8.44) (7.93) (7.96) (9.07)
  Female student 1.08 1.09 1.08 0.91 0.90 0.88
  (0.72) (0.77) (0.67) (−0.70) (−0.80) (−1.00)

(continued)

17
Table A2 (continued)

Reading Math

Characteristic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

 SES 1.27** 1.48** 1.45** 1.25** 1.47** 1.41**

  (3.25) (4.35) (4.06) (2.68) (3.53) (3.15)
  Student health 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.98 1.00
  (−0.55) (−0.38) (−0.04) (−0.51) (−0.38) (−0.02)
  Age in months as of 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
start of kindergarten   (0.02) (0.02) (−0.30) (−0.48) (−0.55) (−0.81)
Teacher/classroom characteristics  
  Black teacher 1.80** 1.50† 2.22** 1.82*
  (2.78) (1.82) (3.41) (2.44)
  Hispanic teacher 1.17 0.98 1.01 0.81
  (0.62) (−0.09) (0.04) (−0.60)
  Asian teacher 1.04 1.21 0.52 0.66
  (0.10) (0.48) (−1.20) (−0.72)
  Teaching experience 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
(in current school)   (0.44) (0.32) (−0.77) (−1.01)
  Master’s degree 1.00 1.06 1.01 1.06
  (0.03) (0.50) (0.07) (0.43)
 Certified 0.98 1.00 1.42 1.47†
  (−0.09) (−0.01) (1.51) (1.65)
  Class size 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02
  (−0.03) (0.25) (0.62) (0.75)
  Class mean SES 0.77* 1.00 0.74* 1.07
  (−2.03) (0.01) (−2.02) (0.41)
  Class percentage 1.77† 0.64 1.26 0.39†
Black students   (1.81) (−1.03) (0.64) (−1.90)
  Class percentage 1.72† 1.05 2.12* 1.22
Hispanic students   (1.70) (0.10) (2.06) (0.31)
  Class percentage 1.20 1.55 0.85 1.27
Asian students   (0.49) (0.94) (−0.37) (0.45)
School characteristics  
 Urban 1.20 1.05
  (1.38) (0.32)
 Rural 0.87 0.82
  (−0.84) (−0.99)
 Midwest 1.30 1.32
  (1.46) (1.50)
 South 1.24 1.34
  (1.25) (1.56)
 West 1.06 0.99
  (0.27) (−0.04)
  School size 0.94* 0.95
  (−2.08) (−1.45)
  School FRPL rate 1.23 1.15
  (0.68) (0.37)
  Fraction Black 3.38* 3.23*
students   (2.58) (2.12)
  Fraction Hispanic 2.49 2.56
students   (1.40) (1.07)

(continued)

18
Table A2 (continued)

Reading Math

Characteristic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

  Fraction Asian 0.18† 0.14†

students   (−1.91) (−1.86)
  School mean test 0.97** 0.94**
score   (−2.69) (−5.55)
Observations 15,060 15,060 15,060 15,060 15,060 12,880 12,880 12,070 12,070 12,070

Note. Coefficients reported as odds ratios. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public
schools with gifted programs only. The t statistics, in parentheses, are based on robust standard errors clustered at the child level. SES = socioeconomic
status; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table A3
Predicting Assignment to Gifted Programs With Student–Teacher Race Congruence (Full Results)

Reading or math assignment Reading assignment Math assignment

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Black student 0.38** 0.29** 0.31** 0.35** 0.24** 0.26** 0.56 0.47 0.51
(−2.65) (−3.16) (−3.03) (−2.70) (−3.43) (−3.24) (−1.29) (−1.59) (−1.45)
Hispanic student 0.90 0.74 0.77 0.82 0.69 0.72 1.10 0.79 0.83
(−0.36) (−0.87) (−0.77) (−0.59) (−1.06) (−0.90) (0.25) (−0.55) (−0.41)
Asian student 1.06 1.02 1.05 0.95 0.97 1.01 1.78 1.87 1.96
(0.16) (0.05) (0.13) (−0.16) (−0.08) (0.01) (1.38) (1.37) (1.49)
Black teacher 1.28 1.19 1.01 1.31 1.18 1.00 2.29* 2.19* 1.76
(0.82) (0.55) (0.03) (0.84) (0.51) (−0.01) (2.18) (2.05) (1.48)
Hispanic teacher 0.93 0.90 0.75 1.07 1.02 0.83 0.87 0.82 0.69
(−0.21) (−0.30) (−0.76) (0.19) (0.07) (−0.49) (−0.29) (−0.42) (−0.70)
Asian teacher 1.10 1.09 1.13 1.09 1.08 1.08 0.47 0.48 0.52
(0.23) (0.20) (0.26) (0.19) (0.18) (0.15) (−0.91) (−0.91) (−0.80)
Race congruence 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.80 0.81 0.81 1.15 1.16 1.15
(−0.48) (−0.44) (−0.47) (−0.75) (−0.70) (−0.68) (0.39) (0.40) (0.39)
Black Student × 3.26† 3.26† 3.02† 3.90† 3.88† 3.48† 1.13 1.19 1.09
Race Congruence (1.79) (1.79) (1.67) (1.96) (1.96) (1.79) (0.15) (0.22) (0.11)
Hispanic Student × 1.55 1.40 1.33 1.58 1.42 1.35 1.43 1.20 1.08
Race Congruence (0.78) (0.59) (0.48) (0.80) (0.61) (0.49) (0.45) (0.23) (0.09)
Asian Student × 1.00 0.96 1.27 1.28 1.25 1.65 1.42 1.49 2.13
Race Congruence (0.00) (−0.06) (0.32) (0.33) (0.29) (0.64) (0.31) (0.35) (0.65)
Reading test score 1.71** 1.72** 1.74** 1.73** 1.74** 1.76** 1.70** 1.71** 1.77**
(standardized) (9.26) (9.37) (9.28) (8.84) (8.99) (8.86) (8.06) (8.24) (8.62)
Math test score 1.91** 1.92** 1.92** 1.92** 1.93** 1.93** 1.88** 1.89** 1.93**
(standardized) (10.17) (10.04) (9.80) (9.73) (9.61) (9.34) (8.34) (8.26) (8.50)
Female student 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.05 1.06 1.06 0.86 0.86 0.85
(−0.13) (−0.09) (−0.12) (0.47) (0.55) (0.52) (−1.07) (−1.11) (−1.20)
SES 1.39** 1.58** 1.58** 1.37** 1.59** 1.59** 1.32** 1.56** 1.55**
(4.87) (5.28) (5.28) (4.25) (5.02) (5.01) (3.36) (3.97) (3.97)
Student health 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.98 1.00
(−0.95) (−0.87) (−0.59) (−0.81) (−0.71) (−0.39) (−0.38) (−0.29) (0.06)

(continued)

19
Table A3 (continued)

Reading or math assignment Reading assignment Math assignment

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Age in months 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98
as of start of (−0.67) (−0.70) (−0.94) (−0.63) (−0.68) (−0.89) (−0.83) (−0.88) (−1.02)
kindergarten
Teacher characteristics  
 Teaching 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
experience (in   (0.35) (0.49) (0.36) (0.51) (−0.83) (−0.76)
current school)
  Master’s degree 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.02
  (−0.41) (−0.02) (−0.40) (0.04) (−0.24) (0.15)
 Certified 1.10 1.07 1.09 1.06 1.56† 1.57†
  (0.51) (0.38) (0.43) (0.32) (1.81) (1.82)
Classroom characteristics  
  Class size 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02
  (0.46) (0.51) (0.01) (0.12) (0.48) (0.53)
  Class mean SES 0.81† 0.88 0.78† 0.87 0.76† 0.96
  (−1.67) (−0.89) (−1.85) (−0.89) (−1.85) (−0.28)
  Class percentage 1.59 0.62 1.90† 0.65 1.30 0.33*
Black students   (1.47) (−1.14) (1.95) (−0.96) (0.69) (−2.15)
  Class percentage 1.43 0.81 1.47 0.79 1.89† 1.00
Hispanic students   (1.22) (−0.45) (1.21) (−0.46) (1.72) (−0.01)
  Class percentage 1.08 1.27 0.96 1.14 0.83 1.11
Asian students   (0.23) (0.61) (−0.10) (0.32) (−0.42) (0.19)
School characteristics  
 Urban 1.25† 1.21 1.04
  (1.78) (1.42) (0.27)
 Rural 0.92 0.92 0.85
  (−0.52) (−0.49) (−0.81)
 Midwest 1.40* 1.31 1.28
  (2.03) (1.51) (1.28)
 South 1.18 1.24 1.28
  (1.02) (1.22) (1.27)
 West 1.12 1.12 1.04
  (0.59) (0.54) (0.14)
  School size 0.96 0.95† 0.96
  (−1.46) (−1.86) (−1.29)
  School FRPL rate 1.27 1.41 1.41
  (0.82) (1.14) (0.92)
  Fraction Black 3.85** 4.26** 5.01**
students   (2.80) (2.88) (2.77)
  Fraction Hispanic 3.20† 3.52† 3.20
students   (1.86) (1.88) (1.27)
  Fraction Asian 0.19* 0.18† 0.13†
students   (−2.01) (−1.87) (−1.81)
  School mean test 1.01 1.01 0.97*
score   (0.47) (0.49) (−2.46)
Observations 14,280 14,280 14,280 14,230 14,230 14,230 12,070 12,070 12,070

Note. Coefficients reported as odds ratios. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public
schools with gifted programs only. The t statistics, in parentheses, are based on robust standard errors clustered at the child level. SES = socioeconomic
status; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

20
Table A4
Student Gifted Assignment and Race Congruence, Controlling for Current Year’s Test Score

Reading or math assignment Reading assignment Math assignment

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Black student 0.43* 0.34** 0.38* 0.40* 0.28** 0.33** 0.70 0.59 0.64
(−2.31) (−2.77) (−2.51) (−2.37) (−3.05) (−2.75) (−0.81) (−1.16) (−0.98)
Hispanic student 0.89 0.68 0.74 0.84 0.63 0.70 1.08 0.73 0.79
(−0.37) (−1.11) (−0.86) (−0.56) (−1.26) (−0.97) (0.21) (−0.73) (−0.55)
Asian student 1.22 1.08 1.17 1.12 1.05 1.13 1.96† 2.04 2.14†
(0.58) (0.23) (0.46) (0.32) (0.12) (0.35) (1.68) (1.61) (1.72)
Black teacher 1.24 1.14 1.01 1.27 1.15 1.00 2.36* 2.21* 1.82
(0.71) (0.44) (0.02) (0.75) (0.43) (−0.01) (2.35) (2.18) (1.61)
Hispanic teacher 0.78 0.75 0.67 0.90 0.87 0.76 0.74 0.70 0.62
(−0.72) (−0.80) (−1.05) (−0.30) (−0.41) (−0.73) (−0.64) (−0.75) (−0.93)
Asian teacher 0.97 0.94 1.10 0.94 0.91 1.02 0.42 0.42 0.52
(−0.07) (−0.14) (0.20) (−0.14) (−0.21) (0.04) (−1.07) (−1.08) (−0.80)
Race congruence 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.76 0.78 0.80 1.15 1.14 1.14
(−0.69) (−0.63) (−0.57) (−0.92) (−0.86) (−0.76) (0.39) (0.38) (0.37)
Black Student × 3.73* 3.74* 3.46† 4.35* 4.33* 3.90* 1.04 1.14 1.14
Race Congruence (1.99) (1.99) (1.88) (2.12) (2.12) (1.97) (0.05) (0.16) (0.16)
Hispanic Student × 2.45 2.09 1.84 2.42 2.06 1.82 2.07 1.69 1.40
Race Congruence (1.61) (1.32) (1.08) (1.54) (1.27) (1.03) (0.98) (0.70) (0.44)
Asian Student × 1.43 1.33 1.62 1.84 1.72 2.12 2.20 2.23 3.08
Race Congruence (0.50) (0.40) (0.68) (0.82) (0.73) (0.99) (0.73) (0.75) (1.01)
Reading test score 2.26** 2.27** 2.42** 2.40** 2.42** 2.58** 2.28** 2.30** 2.55**
(standardized) (12.26) (12.33) (13.28) (12.56) (12.67) (13.46) (10.07) (10.06) (10.97)
Math test score 2.36** 2.38** 2.50** 2.25** 2.27** 2.38** 2.34** 2.38** 2.54**
(standardized) (10.58) (10.55) (11.30) (9.48) (9.46) (10.16) (7.86) (7.88) (8.98)
Student Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
characteristics
Teacher and class No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
characteristics
School No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes
characteristics
Observations 15,110 15,110 15,110 15,060 15,060 15,060 12,880 12,880 12,880

Note. Coefficients reported as odds ratios. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public
schools with gifted programs only. The t statistics, in parentheses, are based on robust standard errors clustered at the child level.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table A5
Assignment to Gifted Programs and Race Congruence (Dependent Variable = Gifted Assignment in Same Year)

Reading assignment Math assignment

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Black student 0.63 0.47* 0.48* 0.58† 0.38* 0.43*

(−1.53) (−2.17) (−2.14) (−1.75) (−2.40) (−2.15)
Hispanic student 1.30 1.19 1.23 1.09 1.00 1.06
(1.05) (0.67) (0.74) (0.32) (−0.01) (0.18)

(continued)

21
Table A5 (continued)

Reading assignment Math assignment

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Asian student 1.24 1.41 1.63 1.24 1.57 1.81

(0.77) (1.02) (1.40) (0.76) (1.33) (1.63)
Black teacher 1.21 1.14 0.99 1.21 1.13 0.92
(0.70) (0.48) (−0.04) (0.63) (0.39) (−0.26)
Hispanic teacher 1.09 1.04 0.81 1.39 1.31 0.95
(0.29) (0.13) (−0.70) (0.93) (0.78) (−0.14)
Asian teacher 0.64 0.65 0.77 0.59 0.62 0.81
(−1.15) (−1.10) (−0.66) (−1.09) (−0.97) (−0.41)
Race congruence 0.89 0.89 0.98 0.79 0.80 0.86
(−0.51) (−0.49) (−0.07) (−0.93) (−0.92) (−0.58)
Black Student × Race Congruence 1.06 0.99 0.97 0.92 0.88 0.92
(0.10) (−0.01) (−0.05) (−0.15) (−0.23) (−0.13)
Hispanic Student × Race 1.10 1.03 0.80 1.22 1.18 0.89
Congruence (0.22) (0.07) (−0.51) (0.43) (0.34) (−0.23)
Asian Student × Race Congruence 0.49 0.49 0.45 0.37 0.40 0.38
(−0.56) (−0.56) (−0.63) (−0.94) (−0.89) (−1.00)
Student characteristics Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Teacher and class characteristics No Yes No No Yes No
School characteristics No No Yes No No Yes
Observations 21220 21220 21220 18970 18970 18970

Note. Coefficients reported as odds ratios. Estimates adjusted using Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort probability weights. Public
schools with gifted programs only. The t statistics, in parentheses, are based on robust standard errors clustered at the child level.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Acknowledgments  4. To avoid double-counting students who exit and reenter

Mimi Engel and Donna Ford provided helpful feedback on earlier
drafts of this manuscript.
Notes
  1. Using a regression discontinuity (RD) design, a recent study
in a single district by Bui, Craig, and Imberman (2014) found
evidence of only small impacts of gifted assignment on student
achievement. Using a similarly rigorous design, Card and Giuliano
(2014) found evidence that gifted effects are larger for Black and
Hispanic students than for other students. Other RD evidence sug-
gests that gifted assignment increases the probability that parents
keep their children in the district, suggesting that parents are valu-
ing outcomes for students that may not be picked up by standard-
ized test scores (Davis, Engberg, Epple, Sieg, & Zimmer, 2010).
  2. Although “Hispanic” is an ethnicity rather than a race, for
simplicity we use the terms own race, same race, and race congru-
ence to refer to matching between students and teachers on either
the race or the ethnicity dimension.
  3. To ascertain whether or not a school had a gifted program
in either reading or math, we relied on two indicators. First, we
marked a school as having a gifted program if teachers reported
any students as participating in a gifted program. Second, if the
administrator reported that children participate in a gifted and tal-
ented program at this school, we report a school as having a gifted
program.
gifted services at different time points, we include students in our
analysis only the first time they are assigned to a gifted program.
These students are effectively “dropped” from subsequent years,
resulting in a small further reduction in sample size. Finally, to
avoid overweighting students who were assigned to gifted programs
in multiple survey waves, we count students as being assigned to
gifted services only the first time they are assigned.
  5. Multiple imputation was run using the suite of multiple imputa-
tion analysis commands (mi) in Stata 13. Ten data sets were generated.
We used the multivariate normal imputation method with a burn-in of
10,000 and a burn-between of 2,500. Initial values are obtained using a
Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure with 5,000 iterations.
  6. In the third- and fifth-grade surveys, an additional response
category was added to indicate whether or not the school had a
gifted program.
  7. Student assessments were conducted beginning in the end
of March, after field supervisors, interviewers, and assessors com-
pleted training throughout February and March (Tourangeau et al.,
2006). School surveys were distributed at a similar time. When we
instead operationalize assignment as occurring in the same year
(i.e., the outcome indicates whether or not a student was assigned
in a given year, conditional on not being assigned in the prior sur-
vey period), we find many of the same relationships with student
background characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status) and class
and school characteristics but no relationship with teacher race/eth-
nicity or with congruence (see Appendix Table A5).

22

  8. Fifth-grade teacher characteristics are not relevant because
we use fifth-grade data only to capture whether a student not in
gifted services in third grade was assigned in fifth grade.
 9. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten
cohort math and reading assessments are tests of math and reading
knowledge and skills in typical content areas taught in elementary
school. The tests have very good reliability and validity proper-
ties, information about which can be found in National Center for
Education Statistics (2002).
10. We also considered including class mean test score per-
formance as a covariate. We discovered, however, that this vari-
able was correlated at more than 0.9 with both individual student
achievement and school mean achievement, so we did not include
it in the models reported here. Including it, however, has little effect
on most primary coefficients of interest.
11. To illustrate, consider the kindergarten sample. Of the 1,560
schools we include, only 90 assigned more than one sampled stu-
dent to gifted services by first grade. Of these 90, only 50 showed
variation in the race of assigned students, and only 10 were stu-
dents assigned with and without a race-congruent teacher. Such
small cell sizes create similar challenges for the use of student or
teacher fixed effects.
12. These statistics refer to the percentage of students assigned
to gifted services in schools with gifted programs. Among all
schools, 4% of students are assigned to gifted services (3% each in
reading and math).
13. If we do not limit on schools with gifted programs, these
percentages are approximately 4% of White students, 2% of Black
students, 3% of Hispanic students, and 6% of Asian students.
14. The full results in Appendix Table A3 show that, in math,
being in a school with high average test scores makes it less likely
that a student is assigned to gifted services. This evidence is consis-
tent with findings in Hibel, Farkas, and Morgan (2010) that special
education placement shows evidence of a “frog pond” effect, in
which high average achievement in the school increases the likeli-
hood that a student is placed in special education. We attempted to
investigate further by interacting individual math score with school
average math score and found that the interaction indeed was sta-
tistically significant, though in the opposite direction of what we
expected; namely, the pattern in the coefficients suggested that the
probability that a high-achieving student was identified as gifted
increased in relatively high-achieving schools. This pattern would
be worth examining further in future work. Our other main coef-
ficients of interest were not substantively affected by inclusion of
this interaction.
References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and stu-
dent achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal
of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135.
Anguino, L. (2003). Underrepresentation of minority students in
gifted and talented education. Multicultural Education, 11(1),
32–34.
Baker, A. (2013, January 12). Gifted, talented and separated: In one
school, students are divided by gifted label—and race. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Bhatt, R. (2009) The impacts of gifted and talented education
(SSRN Working Paper No. 09-11). Retreived from http://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1494334.
Discretion and Disproportionality
Bireda, S., & Chait, R. (2011). Increasing teacher diversity:
Strategies to improve the teacher workforce. Washington, DC:
Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://american-
progress.org
Boser, U. (2014). Teacher diversity revisited: A new state-by-state
analysis. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Retrieved from http://americanprogress.org
Bui, S. A., Craig, S. G., & Imberman, S. A. (2014). Is gifted educa-
tion a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented
programs on students. American Economic Journal: Economic
Policy, 6(3), 30–62.
Burgess, D., van Ryn, M., Dovidio, J., & Saha, S. (2007). Reducing
racial bias among health care providers: lessons from social-
cognitive psychology. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
22(6), 882–887.
Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2014). Does gifted education work? For
which students? (Working Paper No. 20453). Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://
www.nber.org/papers/w20453
Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase
the representation of low income and minority students in gifted
education? (Working Paper No. 21519). Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://
www.nber.org/papers/w21519
Close, B.R., & Mason, P. L. (2006). After the traffic stops:
Officer characteristics and enforcement actions. BE Journal of
Economic Analysis & Policy, 6(1), 1–43.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2005). Who teaches
whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics
of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher
credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-
subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human
Resources, 45(3), 655–681.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racism in
teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(2), 157–
190.
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler, M. S., &
Keesee, T. (2007). Across the thin blue line: Police officers and
racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92(6), 1006–1023.
Darity, W. A., Jr., & Jolla, A. (2009). Desegregated schools with
segregated education. In C. Hartman & G. D. Squires (Eds.),
The integration debate: Futures for American cities (pp. 99–
117). New York, NY: Routledge.
Davis, B., Engberg, J., Epple, D. N., Sieg, H., & Zimmer, R.
(2010). Evaluating the gifted program of an urban school
district using a modified regression discontinuity design (No.
w16414). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a
randomized experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics,
86(1), 195–210.
Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (2007).
Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary
school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359–381.
DeMonte, J., & Hanna, R. (2014). Looking at the best teachers
and who they teach. Washington, DC: Center for American
Progress.
23
Grissom and Redding
Denson, N. (2009). Do curricular and cocurricular diversity
activities influence racial bias? A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 79(2), 805–838.
Dolan, J., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (2003). Representative bureau-
cracy: Classic readings and continuing controversies. Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in spe-
cial and gifted education. Washigton, DC: National Academy
Press.
Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P. (2005).
Effect of children’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recom-
mendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial
and Special Education, 26(1), 25–31.
Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher
education: A critical examination of the influence of edu-
cational interventions on racial bias. Review of Educational
Research, 74(4), 473–524.
Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expecta-
tions and the Black–White test score gap. In C. Jencks & M.
Phillips (Eds.), The Black–White test score gap (pp. 217–317)
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students
in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and
retention. Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4–14.
Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for cultur-
ally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking.
Theory Into Practice, 42, 217–225.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally
and linguistically diverse students in gifted education:
Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3),
289–306.
Ford, D. Y., Moore, J. L., III, & Scott, M. T. (2011). Key theories
and frameworks for improving the recruitment and retention
of African American students in gifted education. Journal of
Negro Education, 80(3), 239–253.
Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P. C. (1995).
An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 687–715.
Gershenson, S., Holt, S. B., & Papageorge, N. W. (2015). Who
believes in me? The effect of student-teacher demographic
match on teacher expectations (Upjohn Institute Working
Paper 15-231). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research.
Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on
classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students.
American Journal of Education, 83(6), 313–326.
Greenwald, A. G., Oakes, M. A., & Hoffman, H. G. (2003). Targets
of discrimination: Effects of race on responses to weapons
holders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4),
399–405.
Grissom, J. A., Kern, E. C., & Rodriguez, L. A. (2015). The “repre-
sentative bureaucracy” in education: Educator workforce diver-
sity, policy outputs, and outcomes for disadvantaged students.
Educational Researcher, 44(3), 185–192.
Grissom, J. A., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Nicholson-Crotty, S.
(2009). Race, region, and representative bureaucracy. Public
Administration Review, 69(5), 911–919.
Grissom, J. A., Rodriguez, L. A., & Kern, E. C. (in press). Teacher
and principal diversity and the representation of students of color
24
in gifted programs: Evidence from national data. Elementary
School Journal.
Harris, J. J., III, Brown, E. L., Ford, D. Y., & Richardson, J. W.
(2003). African Americans and multicultural education: A pro-
posed remedy for disproportionate special education placement
and underinclusion in gifted education. Education and Urban
Society, 36(3), 304–341.
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed in
special education? Sociology of Education, 83(4), 312–332.
Hindera, J. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: Further evi-
dence of active representation in the EEOC district offices.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(4),
415–429.
Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2011). Recruitment, retention, and the
minority teacher shortage. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Joseph, L. M., & Ford, D. Y. (2006). Nondiscriminatory assess-
ment: considerations for gifted education. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50(1), 42–51.
Kang, J., Bennett, M., Carbado, D., Casey, P., Dasgupta, N.,
Faigman, D.,  . . . Mnookin, J. (2012). Implicit bias in the court-
room. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1124–1186.
Kearns, T., Ford, L., & Linney, J. A. (2004). African American
student representation in special education programs. Journal
of Negro Education, 74(4), 297–310.
Keiser, L. R., Wilkins, V. M., Meier, K. J., & Holland, C. A.
(2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context,
and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science
Review, 96(03), 553–564.
Kennedy, B.A. (2013). Sorting through: The role of representation
in bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 23(4), 791–816.
Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy. Yellow
Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
Kitano, M. K. (2011). Issues in research on Asian American gifted
students. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special
populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able
students from diverse backgrounds (pp. 3–25). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Konstantopoulos, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2001). Who
are America’s gifted? American Journal of Education, 109(3),
344–382.
Kulik, C. L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability group-
ing on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evalua-
tion findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3),
415–428.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C.-L. (1984, August). Effects of ability group-
ing on elementary school pupils: A meta-analysis. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Toronto, Canada.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse stu-
dent populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of
Research in Education, 24, 211–247.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teach-
ers to teach African American students. Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(3), 206–214.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family–school rela-
tionships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of
Education, 60(2), 73–85.

Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion
and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school
relationships. Sociology of Education, 72, 37–53.
Lim, H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substan-
tive effects and active representation. Public Administration
Review, 66, 193–204.
Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The
effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-con-
cept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research
Journal, 32(2), 285–319.
McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources
for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic
status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103–111.
Meier, K. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical
and empirical exposition. In J. Perry (Ed.), Research in public
administration (pp. 1–35). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Meier, K. J., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, representative
bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault.
Public Administration Review, 66, 850–860.
Meier, K. J., & Stewart, J. (1992). The impact of representa-
tive bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies.
American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 151–171.
Meier, K. J., Stewart, J., & England, R. (1989). Race, class and
education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Mickelson, R. (2003). When are racial disparities in education the
result of racial discrimination? A social science perspective.
Teachers College Record, 105(6), 1052–1086.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S.
(2012). Are minority children disproportionately represented
in early intervention and early childhood special education?
Educational Researcher, 41(9), 339–351.
Mosher, F. (1968). Democracy and the public service. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K),
psychometric report for kindergarten through first grade.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Nicholson-Crotty, J., Grissom, J. A., & Nicholson-Crotty, S.
(2011). Bureaucratic representation, distributional equity, and
democratic values in the administration of public programs.
Journal of Politics, 73(2), 582–596.
Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race
social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathemat-
ics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Plant, E. A., & Peruche, B. M. (2005). The consequences of race for
police officers’ responses to criminal suspects. Psychological
Science, 16(3), 180–183.
Pollack, J. M., Narajian, M., Rock, D.A., Atkins-Burnett, S., &
Hausken, E.G. (2005). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–
Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), psychometric
report for the fifth grade. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Discretion and Disproportionality
Pope, D. G., Price, J., & Wolfers, J. (2013). Awareness reduces
racial bias (NBER Working Paper 19765). Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19765
Quiocho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence:
Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of Educational
Research, 70(4), 485–528.
Rocha, R. R., & Hawes, D.P. (2009). Racial diversity, represen-
tative bureaucracy, and equity in multiracial school districts.
Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 326-344.
Rogers, K.B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted
and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational prac-
tice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396.
Selden, S. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy:
diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse
schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness.
Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.
Theobald, N. A., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2009). Race, bureau-
cracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citi-
zens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 19(2), 409–426.
Tourangeau, K., Nord, C., Le, T., Pollack, J. M., Atkins-Burnett, S.,
& Hausken, E. G. (2006). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K): Combined user’s
manual for the ECLS-K fifth-grade data files and electronic
codebooks.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Civil rights data collection,
2009–2010: National and state estimations. Retrieved from http://
ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/Projections_2009_10
Villegas, A. M., & Irvine, J. J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching
force: An examination of major arguments. Urban Review,
42(3), 175–192.
Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Minority representation in
special education: A persistent challenge. Remedial and Special
Education, 23(3), 180–187.
Authors
JASON A. GRISSOM is an associate professor of public policy
and education at the Peabody College of Education and Human
Development, Vanderbilt University, PMB 414, 230 Appleton
Place, Nashville, TN 37203. He conducts research in the areas
of K–12 leadership and governance, teacher and principal
effectiveness, educator labor markets, and representation in
education.
CHRISTOPHER REDDING is a doctoral candidate at the Peabody
College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt
University, PMB 414, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203.
His research focuses on teacher labor markets, teacher education
and development, and school improvement.
25